R v Ji; R v Zeng - [2024] NSWDC 369

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ji; R v Zeng [2024] NSWDC 369
Hearing dates: 16 August 2024
Date of orders: 23 August 2024
Decision date: 23 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:
Paras [68] – [70]

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – Drug offences – Commonwealth offences – Co-offenders – Trafficking a marketable quantity of methamphetamine: s 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) – Deal with money the proceeds of crime: s 400.7(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)– General deterrence – Contrition, insight, and remorse – Objective seriousness of drug offences – Strong subjective cases – Parity.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(1); s 16A(2); s 16BA; s 17A(1)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 302.3(1); s 400.7(1)
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) s 48(2)

Cases Cited:
Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35
Ban Joo Teoh v R [2018] VSCA 239
Duong v DPP (Cth) [2021] VSCA 136
Ngo v R [2017] WASCA 3
Nguyen v R [2010] NSWCCA 132
R v Chen [2022] 130 Crim R 300
R v Hidalgo Ruiz [2020] VCC 1473
R v Liang Xin [2009] VSCA 18
The King v MHM [2023] WASCA 172
Totaan v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 75; 108 NSWLR 17

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Rex (Crown)
Jia Lang ZENG (First Offender)
David Kang JI (Second Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D New (Crown)

R Baldeo (First Offender)
J Brook (Second Offender)

Solicitors:
S Shah (CDPP)
Ting Legal (First Offender)
Just Defence Lawyers (Second Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/35644; 2023/35947
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Offences

David Kang Ji (“Mr Ji”) and Jialang Zeng (“Mr Zeng”) have each pleaded guilty in the Local Court and are to be sentenced for an offence of trafficking a marketable quantity of a controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to s 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (“the Code”). The parties agree that the maximum penalty is 25 years' imprisonment (“the Drug offence").
Mr Zeng is also to be sentenced for an offence under s 400.7(1) of the Code, namely that he dealt with money that was, and that he believed to be, proceeds of an indictable crime, being $1,000 or more ($7,500 cash was found in his bedroom) ("the Proceeds of Crime offence"). The maximum penalty is 5 years' imprisonment and/or 300 penalty units.
Pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“the Crimes Act”), Mr Ji admits that he too committed a Proceeds of Crime offence, relating to $4,600 cash found in his vehicle. Mr Ji has asked me to take into account that offence in passing sentence on him for his Drug Offence (“the Schedule Offence”).

The agreed facts

The parties have agreed as to facts. They boil down to the following.
Between 30 January 2023 and 2 February 2023, Mr Ji and Mr Zeng facilitated the delivery, minding, and receipt of methamphetamine contained in a bag. Mr Ji picked up the bag and delivered it to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ji; R v Zeng and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWDC 369
Decision Date: 23 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ji; R v Zeng, the respondents, Ji and Zeng, were convicted for drug trafficking offences under the Criminal Code (Cth). The court heard the matter concerning the sentencing of the respondents for their involvement in trafficking a marketable quantity of methamphetamine, as well as dealing with money that was the proceeds of a crime. The respondents pleaded guilty to the offences and presented mitigating factors such as contrition, insight, and remorse. The Crown, however, argued that the objective seriousness of the drug offences warranted a substantial sentence to achieve general deterrence.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the respondents and the consideration of mitigating factors such as remorse and insight. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the objective seriousness of the drug offences, which included the large quantity of methamphetamine involved and the substantial financial gain obtained through the criminal activity. Furthermore, the court had to ensure parity in sentencing between co-offenders, considering the roles and contributions of each respondent in the criminal activity.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors presented by the respondents but emphasised the objective seriousness of the drug offences. The court found that the crimes warranted a significant sentence to achieve general deterrence and to reflect the seriousness of the drug trafficking activities. The court also considered the need to ensure parity in sentencing between the co-offenders, taking into account the roles and contributions of each respondent. Ultimately, the court determined the appropriate sentences for the respondents, considering both the mitigating factors and the objective seriousness of the crimes.

The court ordered that Ji be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, with a non-parole period of five years. Zeng was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years and three months, with a non-parole period of four years and three months. These sentences reflect the court's consideration of both the mitigating factors presented by the respondents and the objective seriousness of the drug offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Paras [68] – [70]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ji; R v Zeng [2024] NSWDC 369
Hearing dates:	16 August 2024
Date of orders:	23 August 2024
Decision date:	23 August 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:	Paras [68] – [70]
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence – Drug offences – Commonwealth offences – Co-offenders – Trafficking a marketable quantity of methamphetamine: s 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) – Deal with money the proceeds of crime: s 400.7(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth)– General deterrence – Contrition, insight, and remorse – Objective seriousness of drug offences – Strong subjective cases – Parity.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(1); s 16A(2); s 16BA; s 17A(1) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 302.3(1); s 400.7(1) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) s 48(2)
Cases Cited:	Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35 Ban Joo Teoh v R [2018] VSCA 239 Duong v DPP (Cth) [2021] VSCA 136 Ngo v R [2017] WASCA 3 Nguyen v R [2010] NSWCCA 132 R v Chen [2022] 130 Crim R 300 R v Hidalgo Ruiz [2020] VCC 1473 R v Liang Xin [2009] VSCA 18 The King v MHM [2023] WASCA 172 Totaan v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 75; 108 NSWLR 17
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Jia Lang ZENG (First Offender) David Kang JI (Second Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: D New (Crown) R Baldeo (First Offender) J Brook (Second Offender) Solicitors: S Shah (CDPP) Ting Legal (First Offender) Just Defence Lawyers (Second Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/35644; 2023/35947
Publication restriction:	Nil